197 Responses

I can see the argument there, but I'd rather do without a head of state who has to meet a religious qualification -- imposed by a foreign Parliament three hundred years ago -- that would not only be unjust but illegal to impose on our government.

Far better to have a parliamentary democracy in which ministers, including the prime minister, have to answer for their actions to the people's representatives on a daily basis.

That's not the opposite of a republic. Changing the nominal head of state doesn't have to mean going the US route. We could - and should - create something that reflects this nation's people and ways and histories.

It's a fact that not only have all of Elisabeth Windsor's children's marriages ended in divorce

Uh, Edward and Sophie?

And Charles and Camilla.

Which is good role modeling stuff. I was able to explain to my daughter how life isn't a fairy tale. And that Prince Charles first marriage to the boys mother, lady Diana didn't work out, so they separated. And that this was the healthy and appropriate thing for all concerned.

There is no reason why an NZ republic should separate a powerful executive (president/governor and cabinet) from the legislature

In fact, only a minority of republics (such as the USA and France) do this.

Most republics have a titular president with limited powers, with the head of government being the parliamentary majority leader (Ireland, Germany, India, etc) or combine the roles of PM and head of state (South Africa).

Lea, Russell's answered the question as I would have. The US republic is a particular arrangement and separates the legislature from the executive in a unique way. We'd not have to, or want to, follow their approach... which is federalist too. My preference for a republic is to simply replace the Governor General with a domestically appointed head of state with largely the same, ceremonial powers (I'll leave others to talk about the "reserve powers" if they so wish).

There is an issue of how they are appointed of course. Debate over this - appointed by all of parliament or by through a separate election - was partly what derailed the 1999 Australia referendum

When the 18th century English dissenter Richard Price, friend of Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, warned that fawning before royalty produced "idolatry as gross and stupid as that of the ancient heathens," he aptly titled his denunciation "A Discourse on the Love of Our Country."....

........The trouble with monarchy, however, is that, by definition, no one can stop the Prince from becoming King Charles III, because the British are not allowed to vote for their head of state. Charles Windsor constantly interferes in politics and promotes every variety of reactionary superstition and new-age quackery. He sounded like the leader of a messianic cult when he announced in a recent book, "I would be failing in my duty to future generations and to the Earth itself if I did not attempt to ... indicate possible ways we can heal the world." Yet whatever his personal failings, he will be King because he was born to the right mother.

As for NZ becoming a republic, Russell–try living in one for a decade and you’ll soon change your mind…..Give me a hereditary monarch with extremely limited powers any day over an elected one with real power and no-one to answer to. Even if the chief executive is voted out after four years, they can do a lot of damage in the meantime.

Ditto. That kiss(es) was a beautiful scene. I think social/ political investment in that moment benefits us as people and as a nation.

Make no mistake, it affects the Treaty Rich of Obsevationz. Currently the original signatory (the British) still have a stake in the agreement, removing them entirely will certainly alter the dynamic of the relationship between the parties.

Chris, becoming a republic doesn't necessarily disrupt any obligations under the Treaty, it might transfer them but the reality is that the UK offers no real contribution beyond access to higher courts... oh hang on...

I don’t think I know better than anyone here Islander. Perhaps I’m wrong, I simply worry that over 37% of New Zealanders want the treaty removed from New Zealand law, that if this number were to increase significantly, then the Governor General and the British system itself could be the last recourse of mediation in such an instance.

Perhaps it’s naive of me, but I see Britain as a last line of insurance against gross mismanagement of New Zealand for the price of minimal political interference. As evidenced rightly or wrongly in the case of David Bain.

is that the UK offers no real contribution beyond access to higher courts… oh hang on…

That is an interesting take (word meant in both languages) on the subject chris-one of the things that Kai Tahu have found over the past decade is that - education works. Working in the general community (of the South Island mainly, but also north)- works. Making our huiatau/annual meeting open to everyone - works. There is waaay less racism/anti-Maori feeling now, than when I was growing up - indeed, for much of my adult life. There may have been a poll that showed "over 37% of New Zealanders want the Treaty removed from New Zealand law"- but I'd really like some details on that figure e.g: number of participants? Wording of question? Area/s participants came from?

I’m unfamiliar with that poll Chris. Fortunately, neither a poll nor even for that matter a majority of electors of even MPs is sufficient to excuse the crown’s responsibilities under the Treaty. It is a matter for the courts, international courts if necessary as it was a Treaty between two sovereign parties. Any process toward republicanism would necessarily involve an agreement transferring any responsibilities owed by Elizabeth R to the NZ government. Anyone advocating for republicanism on any other basis is either wrong or foolish.

As the link says Islander; 2700 participants, but like any survey, it’s never going to give you a particularly clear indication of the feeling of the greater population, but it’s a high enough figure to cause some concern.

the Governor General and the British system itself could be the last recourse of mediation in such an instance.

The G-G can be fired by the Prime Minister at any time, without cause.

The British have zero input, except as one of 192 members of the UN. Even when the Privy Council was the highest court of NZ (that changed for cases after 2004) it acted as a hired adjudicator to interpret *NZ* law.

I don’t think I know better than anyone here Islander. Perhaps I’m wrong, I simply worry that over 37% of New Zealanders want the treaty removed from New Zealand law, that if this number were to increase significantly, then the Governor General and the British system itself could be the last recourse of mediation in such an instance.

You are wrong, as we don't have any recourse to a British system any more. Which renders all of your points rather pointless.